Field of Glory: Empires is a grand strategy game in which you will have to move in an intricate and living tapestry of nations and tribes, each one with their distinctive culture.
Set in Europe and in the Mediterranean Area during the Classical Age, experience what truly means to manage an Empire.

I wonder if the game would be better if the Tier 1 countries were excluded as playable armies?

I think that would be a very interesting game if all the humans took tier 2 powers and worked together to try and divide the tier 1 powers, creating new empires in the process. After that, we'd have a new set of top tier factions that could then engage in diplomacy and backstabbing. This would nicely mirror the dynamics of the Alexandrian conquest transition to the Wars of the Successors. It would also give players interesting options for the early AND middle game. Potentially.

If people are interested in that, I'd be willing to set it up under the title: New World Order

Yes, I'm willing to try that. Given the spread of the Tier 2-3 locations it would bias the game more towards diplomacy and trade and give time for countries to build before war comes.

Yes, I'm willing to try that. Given the spread of the Tier 2-3 locations it would bias the game more towards diplomacy and trade and give time for countries to build before war comes.

What's a good list of interesting tier 2 powers that border the majors?

- Epirus
- Athens/Aetolia/Achaea
- Pontus
- Dacia?
- Armenia?
- Saba is locked in a deathmatch with Quataban and is not really that close.
- Rhodes seems.......too small, but their fleet is rather good.
- Illyria is garbage
- Syracuse is in a BAD SPOT
- Tarentum?
- The Dardani?

The idea would be to have a collection of tier 2 powers that could cooperate a little bit to mitigate the advantages of the majors. And since the AI wouldn't make the easy moves of making peace between the diadochi, they'd be a bit distracted........

Yes, I'm willing to try that. Given the spread of the Tier 2-3 locations it would bias the game more towards diplomacy and trade and give time for countries to build before war comes.

What's a good list of interesting tier 2 powers that border the majors?

- Epirus
- Athens/Aetolia/Achaea
- Pontus
- Dacia?
- Armenia?
- Saba is locked in a deathmatch with Quataban and is not really that close.
- Rhodes seems.......too small, but their fleet is rather good.
- Illyria is garbage
- Syracuse is in a BAD SPOT
- Tarentum?
- The Dardani?

The idea would be to have a collection of tier 2 powers that could cooperate a little bit to mitigate the advantages of the majors. And since the AI wouldn't make the easy moves of making peace between the diadochi, they'd be a bit distracted........

I am involved in several matches involving smaller nations and they can be quite frustrating.

Individual turns often take about half a dozen clicks of the mouse followed by a 48 hour wait for the first turn and then exactly one or two clicks for the next five or six turns waiting for the first building and/or troops to be built.

There is the very real possibility of being wiped as one of the two British tribes within ten turns.

Small nations in my opinion make great single person games but very volatile MP games.

Suggestion : All tier 1 and larger tier 2 nations BUT......As is common in many MP games no player v player fighting for a set period of turns so those who start at war like the Ptolemies and Antigonids instantly peace out.......is that workable ?

Precisely! I got too tired to write a longer post after my "starting conditions" post, but the point is small nations are boring at start. After that, you can either snowball or end up being wiped out, both of which would be a large part the result of luck rather than anything else.

[/quote]
In short, you were not communicating with me as you should have been, for your own sake, not mine, which was exactly my point. Everything is overthought and overcomplicated.
[/quote]

Ok, now you're just being a schmuck. I've conceded the game. I've commended you guys on good play. I've admitted we didn't properly see what threats faced us and that we should have done more to secure ourselves against it. I've even said there was an opportunity lost maybe to turn you, but I couldn't know that at the time, so I made a play for other players and we got them. I have clarified the roleplaying chat that I put in this forum, none of it was personal, but on top of that all of it was related to what we were trying to do in the background. We had a tough task, we did our best, we failed. You've won, I don't know why you need to make insinuations about my character, or make me out to be completely incompetent. At this point this is not only not in roleplay for you, but also post-game, and you're still ripping into me at this point, and I don't appreciate it.

I'm sorry but it really sucked to lose this one. We'd put in a lot of work and came very close to having the alliance we needed to come back from the brink. We failed and it didn't feel great (I'd also lost my wallet so I was complete mess waking up that morning ). Nevertheless, I came back to concede and commend you guys on a good game, and even to discuss what we are all individually doing and what we'd each individually learned from it, the mistakes that were made, the difficulty of our positions, our view of the positions of others, and what these lessons might mean for the meta next turn. Comments like 'high on my own supply' and 'diplomacy not propaganda' and 'everything is overthought and overcomplicated' is not thoughtful discussion and constructive critique and coming from someone who doesn't know what I was doing in terms of diplomacy or how. Our strategy was by necessity complicated, because we were not in a position to just attack our enemies on turn 2, or even turn 35. We needed not only peace agreements but also tangible support from multiple countries to survive. This is a complicated alliance to form, as everyone needs different timings, some countries won't move without others, everyone is wondering whether they could just stay out of it and have someone else do it for them etc. But all of that aside, plenty, myself included, have pointed out my mistakes without making disparaging comments about me. I don't know why you feel the need to bring me down from a position where you have won the war and I having conceded. It kind of feels like twisting the knife.

I for one have learned a lot from our discussion - the combination of multiple perspectives on the same sequence of events is absolutely invaluable. Thank you ledo for your (extremely ) detailed write-ups on the Romano-Poeni side of things. It's been great to see just how much you and the others dove right in to the diplomatic side of things (as was intended).

It's been mentioned already, but just to reiterate, it's important to remember just how stressful (in game terms) things are for the people on the other side of your war. Macedon and I were jumping into the unknown against a faction that is usually designed to conquer the world with plenty of implemented bonuses. I for one was caught a little off guard by how quickly the premier naval power of the Western Mediterranean jumped into the fray. How people react to invasions in this game is always a bit of a coin flip. And to be clear, I have literally been the guy who's led the charge against the aggressor. Still, it's always hard know for sure what a human will do in any situation. I could say more, but I think pnoff made the point already that things were dicey at times for us during the invasion. However, I would also point out that, at least for me, a complete invasion debacle.........would not have been the end of the world for me. I had resources to spare and a decent geostrategic situation, in no small part because I had planned things out ahead of time. Lessons learned from other games where I quite inefficiently used the admittedly massive resources that the Antigonids can theoretically pull in.

Games are hard, people are crafty, etc etc.

All of which combines to result in situations where people's feelings are open and exposed. Am I always gracious in the face of defeat? Hell fucking no. Just ask devoncop how salty I get in FoG 2 sometimes. Self improvement is a process, it seems. So I greatly respect ledo for his openness, honesty, and graciousness. Even though I didn't appreciate his......how shall we say.......extensive reporting on the initial defeats of my fleet and the bruising my army suffered. After his after action report, I now understand that it had a lot more to do with his ongoing diplomatic efforts, so I understand it much better. Still, I would hope that pnoff reads ledo's words and makes amends.

Thanks Geffalrus. On the topic of a new game I had a few thoughts looking at some of the suggestions here.

As far as country selection I think we should pre-make a list of countries not just based on size/remarkable/major status but also proximity. Every country should be able to be involved and at least powerful enough to have an important place in the game, if even as a buffer state. For example, Celtiberii are probably a bit too far removed to be a major concern for most players, but also don't really have the power to do anything useful if they are drawn in (although maybe in some cases). Meanwhile, Armenia might be small between two big states but can be big enough that in a war between Antigonos and Seleukos both might eagerly seek their alliance. And one might be eager to protect it against the other. As a completely imperfect sample list I've crafted in 5 minutes (assuming we can get up to 16 players):

That's all I can think of right now. Basically my only major reservations would be one of the majors not being included (aside from Maurya) and someone playing picts or Britonae etc. and possibly missing the entire game assuming it doesn't run for hundreds of turns.

For choosing which player plays which country, if we're playing with a similar group over multiple games it might be fun to have a semi-random selection with maybe people able to swap if they really want to. It might just mix things up, because currently all I want to play is Carthage but would probably enjoy being forced into a different interesting position.

As for peacetime, maybe just for minors, and maybe a very short window, like 1-2 turns before declaration to give them some diplomatic room. I think overall artificial barriers make it a little less interesting and I'd like for there to be an option of players not peace out of the immediate diadochi war. I think we've probably learnt a lot from last game and because we've got a better feel for the other players, diplomacy might be a bit quicker and proactive. In that scenario I don't think it will be as easy or at least it will be costly to just steamroll a player, particularly if they have a few turns to find protectors who see their value as buffer states/thorns in the sides of their enemies. Once alliances are settled, I think it could be quite interesting playing a small nation relying on a protector.

I think to ease the problems that a lack of peacetime might have created, lowering the difficulty would be good, making it easier for smaller nations to expand. This would have a side benefit of making it slightly easier for countries with lots of AI enemies to not be forced to spend most of the game dealing with them. Although it might affect the balance of the game most of these problems could be solved through adjusting perceptions of a country and diplomacy. Additionally, I'd very much prefer if countries were more able to be involved in world affairs, it would suck to spend most of the multiplayer game with a diplomatic focus just fending off AIs.

OMG we are DEFINITELY lowering the difficulty. Christ on a cracker, the AI boost and the decadence problems are just the absolute worst. And it's just depressing to see the bottom tier of the CDR list packed with all those player indicators.

Culture and decadence need to be factors, of course.........but factors that you can at least reasonably tackle.

I think if we populate the game with the same-ish players and have a few days lead-up for pre-game diplomatic talks........that should obviate the need for any special rules. I imagine the moves of the Diadochi are going to be watched MUCH more closely this time around.

Oh, been meaning to mention this. There was some talk about the Antigonid war exploit. Personally, I use a house rule where I only exploit it a little during otherwise peaceful times to get myself to 3 wars against factions that are.......close-ish to me. Examples would be: Bosporus, Media, Colchis. Those factions are at least in the nearby Hellenistic sphere of influence. No random wars against the Picts or Celtiberians. That personal rule also tends to keep me from exploiting it to go over 5 safe wars, which is the point at which you start DECREASING your government age. Obviously, these are personal things I do to balance giving myself a slight boost without completely abusing the mechanic. Your mileage may vary.

As far as Judea is concerned.........I don't know, they only seem potent if they can be fed. I've done that as Antigonus to allow that player to have something to do. But otherwise, Judea AI is a bug that I squash because they are a needless annoyance. Arabia is better. Slightly farther away, but an obvious partner for Antigonus to pursue to counteract Nabatea. Even Nabatea would be a more interesting option than Judea in some respects.

OMG we are DEFINITELY lowering the difficulty. Christ on a cracker, the AI boost and the decadence problems are just the absolute worst. And it's just depressing to see the bottom tier of the CDR list packed with all those player indicators.

Culture and decadence need to be factors, of course.........but factors that you can at least reasonably tackle.

I think if we populate the game with the same-ish players and have a few days lead-up for pre-game diplomatic talks........that should obviate the need for any special rules. I imagine the moves of the Diadochi are going to be watched MUCH more closely this time around.

Oh, been meaning to mention this. There was some talk about the Antigonid war exploit. Personally, I use a house rule where I only exploit it a little during otherwise peaceful times to get myself to 3 wars against factions that are.......close-ish to me. Examples would be: Bosporus, Media, Colchis. Those factions are at least in the nearby Hellenistic sphere of influence. No random wars against the Picts or Celtiberians. That personal rule also tends to keep me from exploiting it to go over 5 safe wars, which is the point at which you start DECREASING your government age. Obviously, these are personal things I do to balance giving myself a slight boost without completely abusing the mechanic. Your mileage may vary.

As far as Judea is concerned.........I don't know, they only seem potent if they can be fed. I've done that as Antigonus to allow that player to have something to do. But otherwise, Judea AI is a bug that I squash because they are a needless annoyance. Arabia is better. Slightly farther away, but an obvious partner for Antigonus to pursue to counteract Nabatea. Even Nabatea would be a more interesting option than Judea in some respects.

That's interesting about the Antigonid thing. I think its largely fine the way you play it, my only discussion on this point was that it should be included in calculations of Antigonid power. I think I had in my head that the Antigonids would be quite unstable but that's not really the case. It's an asymmetric game so it doesn't really matter how powerful any nation is as long as it can't solo the rest of the world. I think your rule of only three semi phony wars is probably fair, as I'm sure the devs will eventually fix it in a way that balances the game, and forcing you to be constantly at war with at least three bordering nations might not be what they want (that seems insane and probably part of the assumption I had about Antigonos being an explosion in both its impact and longevity ).

My list of countries was largely based on positioning and some rudimentary knowledge of the minor countries situations. I'm happy with anything that's just in the area and forced to be somewhat involved in everything fairly early on. It just feels like that would make diplomacy feel richer.

Also a few days pre-diplomacy sounds really good, which obviously can't be forced but people should be encouraged to get involved upon sign up. It's a diplomacy game, unless its an actual strategy on their part, we should hope everyone who wants to play also wants to be a part of the conversations going on in the background.

Let me be clear about something: I did not win. I would say I got 3rd place, which is fine, I guess, but I play(ed) to be first. And my strategy was depending on others playing to be first, or at least surviving, I hope you will forgive me being a bit salty about people not sticking to it.

I, as a player, don't like Avernii leaving, Lysimachos suiciding and Carthage acting irrational (what is this invasion of my territory? I will never turn on Antigonids like that) and conceding the game. I'm sure they are fine people irl and they have their reasons for this behaviour, but I don't think this is fine sportsmanship/roleplay. A few harsh words coming from the heart are better then passive aggressive behaviour. It is fine to air you frustration if it is there.

Again, to reiterate, since this is the main difference in our worldview: there is no Antigonid-Macedonian alliance which won the game, period. There is no game condition for alliance to win. I am not a winner at this point of the game.

-) on me being a schmuck.

I don't see it, honestly. "Overthought and overcomplicated" is a valid criticism of your strategy. I am sorry if it got under your skin. I did not notice you indicating that the discussion is over and you want to ride onto the sunset. And, anyway, given that you so far wrote x5 of what I wrote on the subject, I would be entitled to a couple of more words, would not I? Also remember that bunch of people are writing that Antigonids won the game and Macedon is to blame for that over and over (again, not my assessment, provided that players stuck to the game in character), so I would be expected to bite back a little, no?

Let me be clear about something: I did not win. I would say I got 3rd place, which is fine, I guess, but I play(ed) to be first. And my strategy was depending on others playing to be first, or at least surviving, I hope you will forgive me being a bit salty about people not sticking to it.

I, as a player, don't like Avernii leaving, Lysimachos suiciding and Carthage acting irrational (what is this invasion of my territory? I will never turn on Antigonids like that) and conceding the game. I'm sure they are fine people irl and they have their reasons for this behaviour, but I don't think this is fine sportsmanship/roleplay. A few harsh words coming from the heart are better then passive aggressive behaviour. It is fine to air you frustration if it is there.

Again, to reiterate, since this is the main difference in our worldview: there is no Antigonid-Macedonian alliance which won the game, period. There is no game condition for alliance to win. I am not a winner at this point of the game.

-) on me being a schmuck.

I don't see it, honestly. "Overthought and overcomplicated" is a valid criticism of your strategy. I am sorry if it got under your skin. I did not notice you indicating that the discussion is over and you want to ride onto the sunset. And, anyway, given that you so far wrote x5 of what I wrote on the subject, I would be entitled to a couple of more words, would not I? Also remember that bunch of people are writing that Antigonids won the game and Macedon is to blame for that over and over (again, not my assessment, provided that players stuck to the game in character), so I would be expected to bite back a little, no?

If you don't consider what you were saying and the way you were saying it as insulting, unhelpful and unnecessary, that's up to you. You're more than entitled to your opinion. Im happy for you to make your point as much as you want. I only said for my part in happy to leave it there.

For the record I have plenty to discuss in terms of the way I play and how trust, seeming to be the non-aggressor and subsequent strong alliances in general tend to be game winners, but since anytime I seek to have a long form discussion I get described as insane and overcomplicated in one line replies, hopefully you can understand why I think such a discussion would be a waste of time. I'm sorry for providing you with detailed responses in the past.

Last edited by ledo on Wed Sep 04, 2019 9:15 am, edited 2 times in total.

I'm a bit confused- are we discussing playing with t1 nations or without them? ledo seems to suggest we include them, Geffalrus said otherwise yesterday. I'm up for either (after the patch) but prefer to include t1 as that would make for a more dynamic game.

If you don't consider what you were saying and the way you were saying it as insulting, unhelpful and unnecessary, that's up to you. [...]

Just expressing my opinion, in case somebody out there was interested.

I'm sorry if you were offended, but I want my view to be represented.

upd. A clarification: I wasn't meaning to beat down on you just for the sake of it. In my opinion, you diplomacy/propaganda (whatever you want to call it) caused a lot of unnecessary doom and gloom and made other players to act irrational and break character. Unfortunately, I was not able to counteract it due to irl business, which is a source of my frustration. So I was not snapping on you because I wanted you to be offended, but because I wanted other people to see your strategy and overview of the game to be "overthought and overcomplicated", which is still the opinion I stand by.